What are the specific roles and limits of an IRB?
Like where does their authority start and end? Do they have a say about altering things in the discussion of a drafted manuscript?
Summary of context:
I have a completed research whose protocol had been long ago approved by said IRB. No breaches were made in the methods.
The results and discussion has undergone a thorough review with other peers and multiple iterations even before being resubmission to the IRB for completion.
Now the IRB is asking clarifications regarding the interpretations of the results and certain points in the discussion.
Now, I confess not having the strongest background in research, but the way I understand it, an IRB is supposed to safeguard ethical concerns prior to implementation rather than have a say with the actual results.
Any tips or insights are very much appreciated.